HomeMy WebLinkAbout509 Burlingame Avenue - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame ITEM #1
Front and Side Setback Variances
Address: 509 Burlingame Avenue
Meeting Date: 4/ 12/99
Request: Front and side setback variances for a first floor addition at 509 Burlingame Avenue,
zoned R-1.
Applicant: Leah & Alex Winck APN: 029-254-040
Property Owner: same as applicant
Lot Area: 5,000 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential
CEQA 5tatus: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and
location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family
residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units.
Summary: The applicants are requesting front and side setback variances to build a new attached
single car gazage and to enlarge an existing single family dwelling from 2 bedrooms to 3
bedrooms at 509 Burlingame Avenue. The project requires the following:
1. Front setback variance for a new attached single car garage (19' proposed where 25'
is the minimum required) (CS 25.28.072 b,2,A); and
2. Side setback variance (3'-6" proposed where 4'-0" is the minimum required) (CS
25.28.072 c, l).
Summary: The applicant is proposing a first floor addition along the west side property line of
an existing single family dwelling. Approximately 294 SF of the first floor along the west side
property line would be demolished to accommodate the new addition. The first floor addition
(435 SF) includes a single car garage, laundry room, one bedroom and a bathroom, bringing the
total floor azea of the house to 1,903 SF (.38 FAR) (exempting the 72 SF covered porch) where
2,700 SF (.54 FAR). Lot coverage would be increased from 30.8% (1,540 SF) to 39.5% (1,975
SF) where 40% is the maximum allowed (CS 25.28.071). The eacisting single story house measures
16'-10" in height. The proposed height to ridge of the addition is 14'-6" as measured from
adj acent grade.
The applicant is proposing to relocate an existing attached single car garage towards the front of
the lot. A front setback variance is required for 19'-0" where 25'-0" is the minimum required.
The first floor addition would be set back 3'-6" along the west side property line where 4'-0" is
the minimum required. The existing house is located 3'-6" from the side property line.
The existing two bedroom house is 1,540 SF (including an attached garage and covered porch).
The addition will increase the number of bedrooms in the house from two to three. One covered
(10'W x 20'D) and one uncovered (9'W x 20'D) off-street parking spaces are required. The
proposed attached garage has 10'-0"W x 20'-0"D clear interior dimensions which meets the
parldng requirement for a covered space. A 9' x 20' uncovered parking space (as measured from
the garage door to the edge of the sidewalk) is provided in the driveway. All other zoning code
requirements have been met.
.
m
Front and Side Setback i/ariance 509 Burlingame Avenue
Staff Comments: The City Engineer notes (March 16, 1999 memo) that drainage from the
proposed addition shall be directed to the public street and that an encroachment permit will be
required for any work within the public right-of-way. The Chief Building Official and Fire
Marshal had no comments on the project.
SETBACKS
Front (1 st flr) *:
Side (le, ft):
Side (right) *:
Rear (1 st flr):
LOT
COVERAGE:
FAR:
' �_ � '�� 1
* 19' -0"
no change
*3'-6"
17' -0"
39.5%
(1,975 SF)
1,903 SF/
.38 FAR
-� �
�• 1
5' -0"
3' -6"
24' -0"
30. 8 %
(1,540 SF)
1,540 SF/
.30 FAR
�_ � � 1 ' � 1
25' (single car
garage)
4' -0"
4'-0"
15' -0"
40 %
(2,000 SF)
2,700 SF/
.54 FAR
1 covered
(10' x 20' )
1 uncovered
(9' x 20' )
1 covered
(10' x 20' )
1 uncovered
(9' x 20' )
1 covered
(10' x 20' )
1 uncovered
(9' x 20' )
HEIGHT.• 14'-6" 16'-10" 30'-0"
DH N/A N/A see code
ENVELOPE:
*Variances required for front setback to an attached single car garage (19'-0" proposed where
25'-0" is the minimum required) and side setback (3'-6" proposed where 4'-0" is the minimum
required).
PARKING:
This project meets all other zoning code requirements.
Ruben Hurin
Zoning Technician
c: Leah and Alex Winck, applicants and property owners
James Neubert, architect
�a
City of Burlingame
Front and Side Setback Variances
Address: 509 Burlingame Avenue
►� ;
Meeting Date: 4/26/99
Request: Front and side setback variances for a first floor addition at 509 Burlingame Avenue,
zoned R-1.
Applicant: Leah & Alex Winck
Property Owner: same as applicant
Lot Area: 5,000 SF
APN: 029-254-040
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and
location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family
residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units.
Summary: The applicants are requesting front and side setback variances to build a new attached
single car garage and to enlarge an existing single family dwelling from 2 bedrooms to 3
bedrooms at 509 Burlingame Avenue. The project requires the following:
Front setback variance for a new attached single car garage (19' proposed where 25'
is the minimum required) (CS 25.28.072 b,2,A); and
2. Side setback variance (3'-6" proposed where 4'-0" is the minimum required) (CS
25.28.072 c, l).
Summary: The applicant is proposing a first floor addition along the west side property line of
an existing single family dwelling. Approximately 294 SF of the first floor along the west side
property line would be demolished to accommodate the new addition. The first floor addition
(435 SF) includes a single car garage, laundry room, one bedroom and a bathroom, bringing the
total floor area of the house to 1,903 SF (.38 FAR) (exempting the 72 SF covered porch) where
2,700 SF (.54 FAR). Lot coverage would be increased from 30.8% (1,540 SF) to 39.5% (1,975
SF) where 40% is the maximum allowed (CS 25.28.071). The elcisting single story house measures
16' -10" in height. The proposed height to ridge of the addition is 14' -6" as measured from
adjacent grade.
The applicant is proposing to relocate an existing attached single car garage towards the front of
the lot. A front setback variance is required for 19'-0" where 25'-0" is the minimum required.
The first floor addition would be set back 3'-6" along the west side property line where 4'-0" is
the minimum required. The existing house is located 3'-6" from the side property line.
The existing two bedroom house is 1,540 SF (including an attached garage and covered porch).
The addition will increase the number of bedrooms in the house from two to three. One covered
(10'W x 20'D) and one uncovered (9'W x 20'D) off-street parking spaces are required. The
proposed attached garage has 10'-0"W x 20'-0"D clear interior dimensions which meets the
parking requirement for a covered space. A 9' x 20' uncovered parking space (as measured from
the garage door to the edge of the sidewalk) is provided in the driveway. All other zoning code
requirements have been met.
Front and Side Setback ijariance 509 Burlingame Avenue
Staff Comments: The City Engineer notes (March 16, 1999 memo) that drainage from the
proposed addition sha11 be directed to the public street and that an encroachment permit will be
required for any work within the public right-of-way. The Chief Building Official and Fire
Marshal had no comments on the project.
I' :_ � �� 9 1
1... 1\ a
�_ � �_ 1 C_� 1
SETBACKS
Front (1 st flr) *:
Side (left):
Side (right) *:
Rear (I st flr):
LOT
COVERAGE:
FAR:
PARKING:
HEIGHT.•
DH
ENVELOPE:
* 19' -0"
no change
*3'-6"
17' -0"
39.5 %
(1,975 SF)
1,903 SF/
.38 FAR
1 covered
(10' x 20' )
1 uncovered
(9' x 20' )
14' -6"
N/A
�' 1
5' -0"
3' -6"
24' -0"
30.8%
(1,540 SF)
1,540 SF/
.30 FAR
1 covered
(10' x 20' )
1 uncovered
(9' x 20' )
16'-10"
N/A
25' (single car
garage)
4' -0"
4'-0"
15' -0"
40 %
(2,000 SF)
2,700 SF/
.54 FAR
1 covered
(10' x 20' )
1 uncovered
(9' x 20' )
30'-0"
see code
*Variances required for front setback to an attached single car garage (19'-0" proposed where
25'-0" is the minimum required) and side setback (3'-6" proposed where 4'-0" is the minimum
required).
This project meets all other zoning code requirements.
Study Meeting: At their meeting on April 12, 1999, the Planning Commission asked several
questions regarding this application (April 12, 1999 P.C. Minutes). The Commission requested
the average setback on both sides of the street for the 500 block of Burlingame Avenue and the
number of garages which are 19' or less from the property line. The applicant submitted a table,
dated April 15, 1999, which indicates that the average front setback on the south side of the block
is 17'-1" (501-521 Burlingame Ave.) and 12'-11" on the north side (500-520 Burlingame Ave).
The closest portion of each residence (house, covered porch, or garage) was used to calculate the
average front setback. The table also provides the setbacks of all garages on both sides of the
street and indicates that the average is 22' -7" ; 50 % of the garages (5 of 10) are 19' or less from
the property line.
2
Front and Side Setback Variance 509 Burlingame Avenue
The Commission asked the applicant to address why, since the construction along the side of the
house is new construction, the proposed garage and addition along the side couldn't meet the
setback requirements. In a written response, dated April 15, 1999, the applicant notes that the
existing house is very tightly oriented and constrained on the property. Therefore, because of the
layout of the house, there is only one location on the property that an addition would efficiently
compliment the appearance of the existing house, the e�cisting circulation pattern within the house,
and the open spaces outside (the yard areas).
In regards to the side setback, the applicant attempted to provide a sufficient room size for the
bathroom, laundry and closet. The applicant notes that all room sizes are less than optimal and
would prefer not to string them out as they have, but the required side yards setbacks constrain
them to do so. He feels it is reasonable to maintaii� the existing 3'-6" side setback. The
additional 6 inches is critical for room widths, door clearances, and the overall square footage.
The applicant also points out that the largest bedroom measures 12'-3" w�de with the 3'-6" and
would measure only 11'-9" wide with a 4'-0" side setback.
In regards to the front setback, the applicant notes that if the addition were pushed further back,
the garage rooflirie would limit the daylight into the living room. The entrance into the new
bedroom would be nearly impossible. The only way to maintain the front setback within the
tightly arranged layout would be to remove the laundry room and not provide one at all, which
the applicant feels would be a hazdship. The applicant feels that all of the rooms are reasonable
in size and not excessive.
The applicant notes that with the proposed garage design, he is able to match the condition of the
neighborhood and maintain one covered and one uncovered parking spaces on the site.
Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must
find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or
unnecessary hardship;
c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience; and
d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
3
'Front and Side Setback Variance
509 Burlingame Avenue
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing.
Affirmative action should be made by resolution and should include findings made for the
requested variances. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing
the following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped March 31, 1999, sheet A-1, and March 10, 1999, sheets A-2 & A-3; with
a front setback of 19'-0" to the face of the single-car garage door;
2. that the requirements of the City Engineer's March 16, 1999 memo shall be met; and
3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,
1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Ruben Hurin
Zoning Technician
c: Leah and Alex Winck, applicants and property owners
7ames Neubert, architect
�
MINUTES
CITY (�' BURLINGAME PLANNING
/ 501 Primrose Road, Burling�rfi
April 12, 1
Chambers
Deal called the April 12, 19�, regular meeting of the
p:m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Staff Present:
Commission to order at 7:00
Commissioners Boju�s, Co ey, Keighran, Key, Luzuriaga Vist' a and
Deal
None
City Planner, garet Monroe; City Attorney, L Anderson; City
Engineer, Fr Erbacker; Fire Marshal, Keith arshall
The min es of the March 22, 1999, regula meeting of the Planning
Co ' sion were corrected as follows: ". 4, para 5& 6; 55 Loma
Vist should have read as follows;
. , and;.
hairman Deal called for a voice v e on the motion and it passed 6
. .; d p. 12, para 4; 1354 Burlin e
Avenue should ave read as fo ows: C. Boju�s moved to am d the
original motion to provide o blade signs of the same size d shape
as on Banana Republic, ." The minutes were then a roved as
amended. .
The order of the
There were no
was approved.
from the floor.
APPLICATION FOR FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR
ADDITION AT 509 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (LEAH & ALEX WINCK,
APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS
CP Monroe briefly presented the project and the commissioners asked: could we have the average
setback on both sides of the street for the 500 block of Burlingame Avenue and identify the number of
garages which are 19 feet or less from the property line; ask the applicant to address why, since this
is new construction on the side of the house, the garage cannot be pushed back to meet setback
requirements and why the 4 foot side setback cannot be met; provide the average setback of the garages
�MMISSION
CA
�e
.
� Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1999
on both side of the street for this block. There were no further questions and the public hearing was
set for April 26, 1999, providing all the information is submitted in time. �
APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIO AL USE PERMIT FOR A 640 SF CESSORY STRUCTURE
AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR WI OWS WITHIN 10' OF A SIDE D REAR PROPERTY LINE
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A EW GARAGE AT 1324 CAPU INO AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
(NICHOLAS MORISCO, S ARCHITECTURE, APPLIC T AND RUSSELL WEBBER,
CP Monroe briefly pr sented the project and the comm' sioners asked: how big is the access
structure there are se eral different numbers in the staff eport; ask the applicant to explain w they
need so much stora e in the accessory structure; a smal r structure closer to the house would better,
could the design e altered to have a minimum two c garage with a storage room which " s" off the
side; code has en revised, a structure more than feet long will require a special perm' , staff should
check to see ' this requirement applies; to acco odate resident's needs the code ha een revised in
the past fiv years increasing the minimum age size from 500 to 600 square fe , applicant should
address y he needs more than 600 squar eet and why such a large garage wo d not be detrimental
the adj ning property. There were no rther questions and the public hear' was set for Apri126,
1999 rovidin� all the information is bmitted in time.
A�`PLICATION FOR PARKING V RIANCE FOR SUBSTANDARD VERED PARKING SPACE
k�IMENSIONS FOR A TWO ND ONE-HALF STORY ADD ION SUBJECT TO DESIGN
REVIEW AT 1420 EDGEHI DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (TIM P CTOR, APPLICANT AND TIM
CP Monroe briefly prese ed the project and the commissio rs asked: page E-2 of the plans indicates
that this garage is uni e, it appears to be a part of a ger structure on the neighbor's property,
applicant should elab rate on how the garage is used w' the neighbor and how it works (neighbor's
access and his acce ); what vwas the square footage r uested of the garage at 118 Occidental; problem
is existing garage is in bad shape, needs to be repl ed, when that happens the site. will be over FA
and will need a ariance if this project is grante , how much square footage is needed to put in o-
code two car arage, can that be taken from house now; would like a picture of two cars ked
side by side n the existing garage; accordin to the California Building Code this is a base nt, is it
a baseme according to the zoning code, ' it is counted as a basement then it does not co nt in FAR
and is t refore a factor in this decisio , concemed about the window size shown, ne emergency
egress om sleeping areas, windows own look too small, should be made bigger n if need to be
since ill have to return to commiss' n to take care of later. There were no furthe questions and the
pu c hearing was set for April 2, 1999, providing all the information is submi ed in time.
APPLICATION FOR LANDS APING VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL E PERMIT TO VARY
FROM THE LANDSCAP STANDARDS OF THE DESIGN GUIDE NES FOR BAYFRONT
DEVELOPMENT TO ES ABLISH A LABORATORY USE, AND O CE AND WAREHOUSE
SPACE AT 330 BE H ROAD, ZONED O-M. (GLENN ABREROS, CALLANDER
ASSOCIATES APPL ANT AND GEORGE & CHIEKO KUJI KA PROPERTY OWNERS .
CP Monroe briefl presented the project and. the commissio ers asked: could applicant pr ide
calculation on ex' ting percentage of landscaping on site; fro ield inspection it looks like th is an
additional build' g attached to this structure, 320 Beach, whi also fronts on Airport with ro up doors
-2-
Jarnes Neubert, Architect � �� � � ` / � �
1291 E. Hillsdale Bivd. Suite 213 ,s �� phone: 650/357.0408
Foster City, CA 94404 fax: 650/312.1283
n n n 'I � �999
4.15.99
t;ITY OF h3UhLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
RE: Winck Residence, 509 Burlingame Avenue
The Minutes of the Study Meeting of the Regular Planning Commission from 4.12.99
resulted in the following request: "Ask the applicant to addresss why, since this is new
construction on the side of the house, the garage cannot be pushed back to meet setback
requirements and why the 4 foot side setback cannot be met."
To respond to the question of why the project has applied for a Variance, there are
several extenuating circumstances:
1. The existing house is very tightly oriented and constrained on the property.
Therefore, due to the way the house is laid out, there is only one location on the
property that an addition would efficiendy complement the appearance of the
existing house, the existing circulation pattern within the house, and the open
spaces outside (the yard areas).
2. SIDE SETBACK: We have tried to provide, between the existing structure and the
property line, (where we propose to demolish the e�cisting garage and storage
room} a sufficient room size for the bathroom, the laundry and the closet. All are
less than optimal, and we would prefer not to string them out as we have, but the
side yard praperty limits constrain us to. We initially intended to apply for a 3'-0"
side yard setback as the immediate neighbor across the street has. Instead, we
thulk it is reasonable to MAINTAIN the existing 3'-6" setback from the property
line. For planning purposes, the 6 inches is critical for room widths and door
clearances, and overall square footage. Without that 6 inches, a larg� person would
not be comfortable in any of these rooms. Also, the new bedroom is only 12'-3"
wide with the 3'-6" setback. This is going to be the largest bedroom in the house. If
we have a 4'-0" setback, this room will be 11'-9" wide.
3. FRONT SETBACK: The front yard setback is part of the above problem. If we
pushed the addition back further, the garage roofline would limit the daylight
admission into the living room, and the entrance into the new bedroom would be
made nearly impossible. The only way to maintain the front setback within the
fiightly arranged layout would be to remave the laundry room altogether, and nat
provide one. We think that all of the rooms are reasonable in size and not exces-
sive; Not being able to provide a laundry room withixi this context would be an
unnecessary hardship, we feel.
With the current garage design, we are able to match the condition of the neigh-
borhood and to maintain one covered and one uncovered parking space for the
property.
Please see the attached information sheet on setbacks for other properties on the 500
block of Burlingame Avenue.
, �
� James Neubert, Architect
1291 E. Hillsdale Bivd. Suite 213
Foster City, CA 94404
4.15.99
RE: Winck Residence, 509 Burlingame Avenue
Setbacks on the 500 block of Burlingame Avenue
� House setbacks Avera e Gara E
500 Burlin ame Ave. 10' 8� 13' 9" 11' 11" 13' 9"
501 Burlin ame Ave. 30' 30' 25' 8"
505 Burlin ame Ave. 15' 6" � 18' 6" 17' 26' 6"
511 Burlin ame Ave. 15' 6" 15' 6" 15' S"
512 Burlin ame Ave. 2$' 6" 28' 6" 13' 5"
515 Burlin ame Ave. 15' 6" 15' 6" 19' 7"
516 Burlin ame Ave. 23' 3" 8� 22' 22' 8" 15' 9"
520 Burlin ame Ave. 12' 9" & 25' 18' 11" 12' 7"
521 Burlin ame Ave. 15' 6" 15' 6" 35' 6"
50� BuYI%nq a,►+�e� 15�-0''
AvE��-�E SE-f�3�}�(c— - svo
. SoUTF4 s l D�. ; �� �- I��
�Sol - 521�
phone: 650 / 357.0408
fax: 650/312.1283
Under 19 ft.:'
Under
OV�r
Ov�
Under
Under
pver
Under
Under
O'J�r
OJei�'
� �..oc.��- Va�vZc..,� ►�(�G � E- �.�
. �lo�e,��} 5��� ; �2 �_ll"
�Sov - 520�
Fi�' �.1:� ;'�l-�l 4'1 :1� I'j' F �i�" _ . . -_ �- G�_ �_'_:.
. . . _ _ . .. - -- `��L_ . .
�.,R1 v.��,t ��ri`� (��-� �I.`�� �,�r�r�; �l���A
. �.;
•Cti��''•s,,/ t��i�'�..��,...�5�.�.y��t..:i�iT ��_.i' P�.� �.''�.��.i�i�.�."Y�lri,,T '�..��,�1'�I.1�'��.`���'�TVY
:-
'C��pe �si t°�p�l�c��tir�n:,__._���'�i:�l �,,�;.,�;.�� ___--�'�:r���r�r���Ot��� - � _.__...._._...�._._ ._,..�.�...�.�
,
0�.. ��_�Y�� oum� , � �u,+�li c�
,
�':oj�ct Add:es�:
_. --._..._ .__._._��_��.._.__.. . .__._.._ _ ___ _._._�... .......��_ .._._..�_,...__._.,.,._
r`isse�.�;3r', P:ar+•ei .�!.,�7at:_�:(s`,
�
APPi,i�.".A.'�"i l'1'' �Y.�.R'I � Ci�'�'ti'EI�
..
e a � __,.. . � _..
��r�� �eo� _ �, �I-�x i�c,l� h`..,;,` __ ._��!m 5 �Ii ��
.--. . -
A��rr.��.,J�-_I_.. �UX'l✓I � (�1L- _�1'l�c�.� �1^uTes�._.
CizyrStat� -G,;, �l�►��i _ �i��Gl C���� �.'it '�t�atc,'I.
. �_� — � , �p
1'h�nr !'�'}: _1.���. liL �� �� Y"i�nre 11�'i'______._._.
,;,� t�o)�'f3-:3�1Q�' . tt�i;_____
.
n` • --
�ax. ,�(Jl�o) '�3 ....I � �ct
��11\_y17M•flf•l..�l 1�� :���r�il�'L�
� �x�,�- �_A-n�►�=s N Gr���T � /�- l �
.A��r� 5>. �z�% � �• i-fl%l-s,�� �1�1�1�
; ,��r .�::i. _ . , S� �1.3 �sTG����-�
:
�>f��>r.r , �. , --�,�� � 3�� - o�� g
.
. ��� - �3� -��9 5
�
P�.etj;� in�t��ntz u-itf� �.t� ast�ri•�: * Y�1�°
' � p � •' �
� � n:.�. P�. :�o�� f�r �.�is a nyl���.i�, ��
�,�. � So- � �� �- �� g:� I s-�- ��-�--
1'k�JFc i r,��� : sz:�t �u� ��r �'�e�l'G� �Ul�_��i'%OI'I.) .. ��-"
-
� �.�
y'e CoC�i`oyv , ��''i�► � rP�G�s� _ . � �,�Y_' . . �'._.� ��._ . .
► h 5��- o f��� ►�� zs ��� �- w._ _..
AF'I�'II)A�'iT�gilr\�7�3.'tl�i:: ::�.��ret� �1-•�*� .. � r�er;;a�ty _�� j�r�ury th�t the informa+..ic�r� given
h�'Te�a � �� �rz�: .,;r_r.. '.� �.t,. '���:°�t .,r k� .,y �S�k,� �i��? hPiic',t.
<'
c�.F��eJ��,�,�� _ :3 �� t�_.__. _
� ��:: ��'. . �- r � . . � f _: .z - .. �._._
A�X �ui N c�c .
7 k111)W -3�OL'+ "r;c' �7:1'1�J5t'�(� ;.^,rt�' :�it'��rt ''T'ij }�f:Tt'hY %";:.r!c�T'iZ.�: t.�IL 3�31J1't' ���?�71�c_.�i12: ?U JUbiC71% L'1llS
dpp 'd G t�� t:�e �I�r.nit1� � rF;1;�:�!5s�+.��;.
�;� �� . �,�� _ /���ti� - - �_
,
�k iNC:IK F'r<<�c.r� ,. Uwtl��'s vZb �.i:�at� .)at�r
. ._... .___. ____ .____�._.. _ . _. _�_.._.�:�,� .���r '._�: t.`�;�� ;_��L�' - �._.._f�-EC�IV�,�_�__.. �
l�ate ��iae�:., 3 ' ► ° ' `�� �e.e: _...._� Zto , ot�__.�.._.._._
MAR 1 01999
�'�Ia�rting Currimissic�n: Stu�v I7�;:r: �� LL• 9°I __ Act�csr� £7�..te:�4•7-L`��ITY OF BURLINGAME.
����������� � PLANNINU DEPT.
� CITY
�� O�
� BURLINGAME
, ',
o ', ,
CIT��" C��F EUFLING��:�1E
VH�Ir��JCE HF''F'LICtiTIUNS
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d1. Your answers to the following questions will assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with th�se
questions.
a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances oi conditions app/icab/e to your
property which do not app/y to other properties in this area.
The nearby lot sizes appear to be quite similar. What makes this project unique is that,
due to the layout of the existing house, and due to the present location of the existing
garage, the addition of a comfortable-sized master bedroom can only occur on one side
of the house and the project requirements force the garage to a location that is about
parallel to the rest of the front of the house and one that is identical to at least fifteen
other homes on the street, including one next-door neighbor and nearly all of the homes
across the street.
b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship
might resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication.
The fact that the prevailing character of the neighborhood is being enhanced, rather
than diminished is partial justification for this variance request. Also, since so many
other homes are not in keeping with the new garage front setback requirement, it
would seem unjust to hold this home to another standard, not in keeping with the fabric
of the neighborhood. The owners have functional needs such as closets and laundry
facilities this addition will provide, in addition to a more private and well-lit bedroom
that cannot otherwise be provided and denial would cause hardship to the extent that
the present house is inadequate to accomodate their expanding family needs.
c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity o� to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or
con venience.
'The proposed addition will not be detrimental except it may cast minimai shadow on the
neighbor to the west. This neighbor knows about the project and has voiced no concern.
There are no Public health or Public safety issues; no convenience issues. Regarding
general welfare, the renovation will make the home have greater charm than it
currently does and it will now appear more like most of its neighbors, with regard to
garage setback.
!�
Ho w wil/ the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character
of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT
The massing of the home is identical to one other home on the opposite side of the
street, a little ways west. The garage is lower than the rest of the house, which serves as
a'backdrop" to the lower garage. The garage also has a hipped roof, which mimics the
larger hipped roof of the house, to the east. The design creates a new courtyard, which is
to be planted to create an intimate indoor/outdoor space. The house will easily look as
nice and appealing as any house nearby. ��� C�� E�
L_
�z�ss ��.n.,,
MAR 1 01999
i !TY OF BURLifUGANlF
PLANNINC DF.F'i'.
a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances or conditions app�icab/e to your
property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. .
Do any conditions exist Qn the site which make other the alternatives to the variance impracticable or
impossible and a�e also not common to other properties in the area? For example, is there a creek cuttinp
through the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of
existing structures7 How is this property different from others in the neighborhood?
b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship
might resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication.
Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exceptionl
(i.e., havinp as much on-site parking or bedrooms7) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses
allowed without the exception7 Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship
on the development of the property7
c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or
con venience. _
How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those
properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, liphting,
pavinfl, landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properti�s, ease of maintenance. Why will the
structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfare7
Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater
systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underflround
storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or
communicable diseases).
Pub/ic safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protectionl WII alarm
systems or sprinklers be installedt Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need
for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use
flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removall.
_General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's
policy and goals for conservation and development? Is there a social benefitl
�onvenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or
parking for this site or adjacent sites)1 Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as
the elderly or handicapped?
d. How wi// the proposed project 6e compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bra/k and character
of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining pioperties in the genera/ vicinityT
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood7 If it does not
affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure a�e proposed, was the addition designed to match
existing architecture or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhoodl If use will affect
the way a neighborhood/area looks, compare your proposat to other uses in the area and explain why it "fits".
How does the proposed structure compare to neighbo�ing structures in terms of mass or bulk7 If there is no
change to structure, say so. If a new suucture is proposed, compare its size, appearance, o�ientation etc. with
other structures in the neighborhood or area.
How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood7 Think of
character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use.
WII there be mo�e traffic or less parking available resulting from this use7 If you don't feel the character of
the neiphborhood will chanpe, state why.
How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the fleneral vicinity? Compare
you� project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity,
and/or state why you� project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. ,znz�...rm,
ROUTING FORM
DATE: March 11, 1999
TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF 'BUII,DING OFFICIAL
FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: Request for front setback variance for a first floor addition at 509
Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-254-040.
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMIVIISSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, March 15, 1999
THANKS,
Maureen/Janice/Ruben
.
� � ��t.�, d v� % � c. ��-r.rrt J�u
s'��.%e � '� � �'-.'n � b' � T/-e� t'
� . C��� � � �
�� /�. w c ��
3 f�6�4q Date of Comments
i�o�� ��`�
� �
�� �� �� � �
% , � w.. •
�
�� � �
�
s -�-�
`-�-- -
�� �
�;� �� � � � �� ,�� � �� . ��is : t �,.
. ,
� , r . � , .. . .. .'k �
� � .
� �-� S �': ..l� "'"_'
���� ' i `�`�` -� , �� ' -t. •��
, � �<- �, �
Go �ic oR � �n1 �4Y �- ,.. �`�"� - � ;' :�.�w= �'.
r
, �� - ��
� p 4� �i...-{ �..`]il�� . � ..�`��.��.. -.
4, � � ,1�
� -
�,�. �'"
�` � , r � r �
� � r � � �� . . ' � `�� � � .
i '�
.. � �� � 4 i Z'}' I•,� �� . . .��1 f � � � :
� �� /'� � . _ �" .:�n�E- � � .. ]k' � � �b
'.i p �a,,.x.�_* ._ . ' . �'
��. l). � �t � h . c�; � .. . � � � � �t�.. , 1 �.,. . � ��� . � y�\.
.W+�' '�-� � ' ' � ' '�.
�� € ' ,.��� � � 76C'i � '� �'�� � ; �` .k,.
, .. ' � _ , ., in=.. c,-
. ,
. iri � � .
�� � �� �� .7 �' :
� y
� �: ; � � �,;..
, � , y
. . _ �� - ��; �'� a� s � �Z 5 d �
' �
�
�„_ �fi ^ - �., t d 5 �
t* f3�R.LttilCa�tME ��� . � AJ�.IV�.. ,��
a � � ;�_
,
� �
4
.� ��
�..� �� ` � 5�,( sIS su SO`� sos c,,o�
� �. " • � �
�.. ,
� �� -�_
� � . f�
� .� , � .
.
� � . � � � �. � �
, � .:
',
�• ,: ... � - 3 ' � �
}, �
�, � �,�. �' � �.: a a � .�''�.
�� ` � �,. ;�% , �;t' � Hr:
Z .M, . (, �t — r� .
7+ '`A
}.II � • �'F . �.�� � � WV .r��� �y �� � :��•
��'� � c
q � �y� ko `
� "y .' . +e'.S � '.Gm - .�1�. '� �
s, � � �p ' �< <x�� �
�� �`� ti � .� �� � ss4 �� ,- � � � . zz1 � ;
"�'" � ; k � ;x - '� t � ��` ` � �:,��,. �Y,; �.��e
, _ � �'
. � �� - ��
, ..� '
>
�. � , { � � ✓� � � � _ '�t'� � ��� ,-� .
.� � °�. �{� .- ' �„ �;
� . � .� . . . �� �, ; ,� ,;��.Y , �� ,,. �
��. �.. . , �v ti�. �.�
� � __ ��,� �.` � � �.
� �,�� . � � �� �.�_ .:�� � �im �_ ' ;�_ti
�A "``: �. t �' � r'� ,. . - �'' .�'�.�i � "'� „ -�� .�: � - - . .. � r .
�`�" � � 'T ` � , �, r p . , . z . ,- ,.-. ��. . y,`:
� �� � tt^g �� ��� ' � "� S ` . � wi � liG- — �
a :� . t, �, O � ,°# � �
� �` � � � �,�� r
� � � 3 � � �;
� A ° �
� i1` � N z
.ww�-ao►r"�twrs � ��. tli ,. -''� _ ...;.��
x�z: . . } � .,. . � � �� _ � y � �,,�c � .. - -
.,,��� �. �. � �. �.. 7 � .
y �� i� t> �ts=� �a k � -
♦� t
'�` „ ..,} R�F. ti � �'+ �..' ''�=M: , �� . � �� � t�.: �
�
F
,. ' � � ' � .. .
. w � � � j ,�� y ,,
....
, ,� , `
" � 3
. � .�.� ,,- _ .� � �
> > !�
.a� �� p 9y :d� ,.
- � . � . . . _ �.
Y . „. . r "' � if ..� 1 �.�:
� � � �.ar � . � _ _.. � ��F, � . � :F . I _
���� . , �'. � ��� � � : � ,�.
,.
e.
, . . 3. Y . .z � �,�.. .. ' r ..� +�`� �. , �� �:�
Hc W �4 RD �4�f 6�►.�� �,
, , .. <;, �,.,_�. � >� „a . � ,
. -
� . � .i. ,. . �::. ...; : . ': 4 . .' � .. 45'. - � _ . 3 W _
� „ �. .,� :. _
. .
. •� � i.� .. /, �� � �� � �� �
��'.� e ` ` � `� `� '�
� �.� '• ' . � ��. - .
�
..
t . .
.., 4 _ .�_, � � .. .. .� � � _ � �
� , .
.�: . �
��
. _ � r ,u .
.
... �
, � -- �
, _. ._ _ ,_ �, . � . ,
euRu�CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
�501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 696-7250
S�►9 RURL I NGAhiE AVEIVUE AF'Pd :��`9—�54—�c741�
Appli��tian for front and side setback pUBLIC HEARING
variances for a first floor addition at 5Q�9
P�.irl ingame avenue, taned R-i. NOTICE
The City of P��rlingame F�l�nning Cammission
anno!tnces the follawing p�►blic hearing on
Monday, April 26, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. in the
C'i�v—Ffal'I�"-YCounci �"C�"mber•s located at ��1
F�r�imrose Ro�d! B�.�r�ling�me, Califor�nia.
Mailed April lb, 1999
(Please refer to other side)
CITY OF B URLINGAME
A copy of the application and pIai�s for this project may be reviewed prior
to the meeting at the Planning Departmenx at `501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, CalifQrnia,
If you challenge the` subje�t application(s) in court, you may be limited to
raising only .those issues yav or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in! the notice or> in written correspondence, delivered to the city
at or prior to the.public,iieazSng.
��
,
Property owners who receive tliis notxce are responsible %r informing their
tenants abouf this' noEice. Foi additioiiai information, please call (650)
696-7250. Thank you. -
Margaret Monroe , ;
City Planner
PUBLIC HEARING . NOTICE
(Please refer to other side)
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK
VARIANCES
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for front and
�ide setback variance for a first floor addition at_509 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1� APN: 029-254-040.
Leah & Alex Winck,_property owners;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on April
26, 1999, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and
testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the
project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and Categorical Exemption, per
Article 19. Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities
or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such
units is hereby approved.
2. Said front and side setback variarices are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in E�ibit
"A" attached hereto. Findings for such front and side setback variances are as set forth in the minutes and
recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records
of the County of San Mateo:
•. � I:u:►I
I, Dave Luzuriaga , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 26th day of A ril , 1999 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMNIISSIONERS:
NOES: CONIlVIISSIONERS:
ABSENT: CONIlVIISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, front and side setback variances.
509 BURLINGAME AVENUE
effective May 3, 1999
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped March 31, 1999, sheet A-1, and March 10, 1999, sheets A-2 & A-3; with a
front setback of 19'-0" to the face of the single-car garage door;
2. that the requirements of the City Engineer's March 16, 1999 memo shall be met; and
3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,
1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.